Institute For The Future

Kid Rock: iTunes rips off artists

The BBC reports that Kid Rock believes iTunes doesn't pay enough to the artists, and has resisted offering his tracks through the service. (However, note that later in the article it says his latest single is available through iTunes in the UK.)

 

The most interesting part of this whole issue is Kid Rock's comments on filesharing:

 

The performer—whose real name is Robert Ritchie—said his record company Atlantic had asked him to "stand up for illegal downloading" a few years ago because it told him "people are stealing from us and stealing from you".

 

"And I go: 'Wait a second, you've been stealing from the artists for years. Now you want me to stand up for you?'

 

"I was telling kids—download it illegally, I don't care. I want you to hear my music so I can play live."

 

Asked whether he was worried about illegal downloading, he replied: "I don't agree with it. I think we should level the playing field. I don't mind people stealing my music, that's fine. But I think they should steal everything."

 

The incoherency of this statement and his dormancy over the last few years aside, Kid Rock is one of few "big" acts to understand that exposure equals concert sales. He is also clearly more concerned with the greed of record executives than the greed of fans, which could be the sign of a bitter rocker past his prime or a sign of a shift in the way big acts are thinking about the system. While you'll be hard-pressed to find artists who praise the system, there are more who accept the status quo and keep it in business than are willing to say anything against it. Because of the access to music technology enables, fans are becoming as important in determining what should be a hit, if not more important, than the executives who think they know what people will like.

 

Another notable bit in this article is a discussion of Garth Brooks' refusal to sell singles on iTunes because he believes an album is an album and should be appraised as a full body of work, not a series of singles—a 5-course meal versus a la carte. This is a beautiful idea to hold on to—and while I agree that, in many genres, the album is dead—I'd like to remind Mr. Brooks that singles were sold on vinyl well before Steve Jobs started tinkering in his garage. Garth Brooks himself has released a number of CD singles. The truth is simply that some people are going to be turned on to the rest of an album by a few songs, and some people aren't, but the consumer has a choice. Why waste the extra $10+ when the other tracks just aren't half as good as that catchy single?